The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Month: December 2009 Page 4 of 5

The Bill of Indictment

Anderson over at the Newshoggers lays it out:

  • Escalation in Afghanistan, a war which cannot be won
  • Increased immigration raids
  • Indefinite detention using the exact same rationale as Bush
  • Warrantless wiretapping
  • Refusal to investigate Bush war crimes
  • Covering up Bush war crimes
  • Backing renewal of the PATRIOT act
  • Continued extraordinary renditions
  • Right to hold people without trial
  • Right to use military tribunals with rules of evidence which violate fundamental rights like facing your accuser and seeing the evidence against you
  • Asserting the right to continue to torture if he chooses, at Bagram and Balad
  • Escalation of the Pentagon budget, both on-book and off-book

And much, much more.

Bush’s third term in almost all significant ways.  And Anderson is right, when lefties are having to try and make the case that Obama is better than Bush, it’s game over.  It shouldn’t even be close.  Bush is in the top 3 worst presidents of all time.  Being slightly better than him is a success?

Lesser evil, indeed

Phagh.

Go read.

Knowing your interests

Are the rich just like us? In one sense they are – they eat, sleep and defecate just like everyone else. They love, cry and die – just like everyone else. But when you’re dealing with policy – no, they aren’t just like everyone else. It’s fashionable (one of those evergreen fashions) to argue that the policies that benefit the rich, benefit everyone. There are certainly policies that benefit everyone, but there are few policies which primarily benefit the rich which are to everyone’s interest. Let’s run through this in a bit more detail.

Rich
Most rich people get most of their money from investments – also know as unearned income. So when investment income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income (what you get on your paycheck), which it is – then those who rely primarily on earned income are being taxed at a higher effective rate. This is a deliberate policy choice.

When jobs are outsourced, the profits still flow back into the hands of US investors. While many people own stock and bonds (especially through pension funds) this disproportionately benefits the rich because the rich (as noted above) disproportionately receive their money from unearned income.

When the domestic economy does badly, but corporate and general investment profits are up – the rich do fine because the cost of things they want (like servants) goes down as supply goes up. Those few people they do deign to employ cost less.

When tax changes are made that are less progressive (moving to fees or flat taxes, for example, and away from income tax) it benefits the rich – because they earn more money and regressive taxes benefit those with more.

When estate taxes are gotten rid of – it benefits the rich (or rather their children).

When public schools are defunded it benefits the rich. Their kids aren’t going to them anyway, and now they don’t have to pay for your kids to go there.

When capital flow laws are relaxed it benfits the rich. Do you need to move a million dollars out of China in a few minutes to get an extra .1% overnight return? No?

When the spread between inflation rates and the interest rate is high it benefits the rich, because most of them are creditors. It hurts the middle class and the poor – because they are debtors.

When bankruptcy laws are tightened it hurts the poor and the middle class and helps the rich.

The Middle Class

When jobs are plentiful, it benefits the middle class. But if you’re already middle class and you keep your job, but others are losing theirs, you can win relatively – especially if prices are dropping relative to your salary.

When jobs pay well and are keeping up with inflation, it benefits the middle class.

When house prices go up it benefits the middle class – because they have the majority of their money in their houses – that’s their savings account. It hurts the poor, because they can’t get housing and it hurts the subset of the middle class that doesn’t yet have a house, because they can’t get one.

When medical care prices increase it hurts the middle classes because their employers stop paying for it, pay for less or leave the country to a domicile where either the government provides it (Canada) or they don’t have to provide it.

The Poor

When rent, food or fuel costs go up it hurts the poor because they spend most of their income on those three things. It hurts them disporoptionately compared to the pain to the rich.

When the economy doesn’t produce new jobs it hurts the poor because they then can’t get jobs, especially the long term poor who are only hired when those with more recent experience are used up.

When medical care becomes more expensive it hurts the poor, because they can’t afford it. So they live in pain, or with chronic diseases and get treated only when it’s close to mortal and they can’t be turned away.

When mandatory sentencing for blue collar crime goes in it hurts the poor because more of them commit crime and it takes away their husbands and their sons.

When some drugs are made illegal while others with psychoactive effects are legal but prescribed only to those who can afford both price controlled drugs and doctors scripts it hurts the poor.

Yes Virginia, the rich are different…

not because they are better or worse than us, not because they are bad people, but because they have different interests and different incentives and they live in a world that is different from the one the middle class or the poor live in. Policies that enrich them could enrich everyone. There are policies and economies that help everyone. From 1945 to around 1970 the rising economy made everyone better off equally – the rich, the middle class, the poor. Everyone prospered together.

It can be that way, but it doesn’t have to be. You can make the pie bigger – or you can make your slice larger. Over the last thirty years Americans have fought over the pie. Warren Buffett once noted that if there was a class war then his class was winning. There is a class war and the rich are indeed winning – and it is one of the things that is slowly destroying the United States.

As Stirling has said in the past – everyone can be prosperous. But everyone can’t be rich. Choose what sort of society you want – or have others choose for you.

(Another repost from BOP. 2004. This is basic class and policy analysis stuff.  I would make some changes to the definition of rich these days, to make sure the the managerial capture class was unambiguously included.)

Ouch

Peter Morici puts banker bonuses in perspective:

How much is $140 billion?

The U.S. economy grew at a $89 billion annualized rate in the third quarter. That was the first growth since the second quarter of 2008 and came to $22 billion in actual growth in the third quarter.

The bankers, after causing the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression, are rewarded with six times the growth accomplished so far in the much heralded “economic recovery.”

Meanwhile, seven million families face foreclosure and 25 million Americans can’t find full time work.

I believe I will laugh, so I don’t cry.  America is so very, very broken, that this could ever happen.

Hahahahahahahaha.

Democratic Strategy

Dave Anderson nails it, I think:

The current Democratic bet is three fold.  The first is that there will be an internal Republican civil war that will cost the GOP numerous winning opportunities.  The prime example would be the NY-23 special election as the Teabagger+GOP vote was greater than the Democratic vote, but the Democrats won anyways.  The second is that the GOP is still fundamentally discredited and most swingable voters would be pinching their noses with three ton vises to vote for the GOP.

Finally, the Democratsa are making a bet that they bad policy that they ares supporting is “good policy” for the swing money.  And they expect to see the swing money continue to back the Democrats which will be enough to either depress GOP turnout or get enough apathetic Democrats to turnout to hold a decent size majority next year.

I agree : they are betting that they are lesser of two evils, the Republicans are borked beyond saving for at least another couple years and that the money they make through bad policy (aka: seeing to the interests of the rich rather than the majority of the population) is sufficient to make up for the negative electoral effects of those policies.

The Flashcard Version

Bad policy = bad outcomes for ordinary people.  Bad outcomes for ordinary people when you control the House, Senate and White House  make them figure they should try the other party.   (See, 2006, 2008).

Dem politicos need to get this tattooed on their butt, so when they pull their heads out for air, they can’t avoid seeing it.

Good policy = good politics.  Wish there were some politicians who remembered that.

Parliamentary Politics in a non Parliamentary System

Yglesias begins to get it:

We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majority’s governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed.

I’ve been explaining this for going on five years.  The first time I tried to explain parliamentary politics to Americans was after the 2004 election (sadly, gone with BOP’s archives).  The most recent was in July, where I pointed out that without the possibility of snap elections, the US form is particularly virulent:

Now in parliamentary systems a majority government just does what it likes, and the opposition reflexively opposes but can’t stop anything.  In a minority government, the opposition can’t just stop everything because if it defeats the government on the wrong vote it’ll cause an election and you don’t want one of those till you’re sure you’ll win and the governing party won’t get a majority.  So the government can still get through a fair bit of its agenda, even if it doesn’t have a parliamentary majority.

In the US there’s no threat of a snap election, and the opposition can often hold up significant legislation, especially in a case like the current one where the governing party has unreliable members (something that’s very rare in most parliamentary systems).

So the Republicans have taken parliamentary opposition one step further.  Instead of just opposing everything but letting it pass, then running against it, they figure why not oppose everything in the hopes of weakening policy to the point where it doesn’t work?  The stimulus bill was compromised to the point where it didn’t do the necessary job.  The global warming bill likewise, and the health care bill appears headed for the same fate.

Lousy policy leads to lousy outcomes. Lousy outcomes make the population unhappy, and less likely to vote the incumbents back in.

What the Republicans are doing makes perfect sense from an electoral point of view.  Voters are not going to primarily blame Republicans for Democrats failing to govern effectively.

This is something that many Democrats, especially older ones who came from a more genteel era, or those who some sort of strange genetic disposition to compromise (Obama) don’t seem to get.  But Republicans get it in their limbic system.

Learn it.  Live it.

Stirling Newberry and Ian Welsh On Virtually Speaking 9pm EST Thursday December 10th

Jay Ackroyd will be interviewing us in world.  If you have a Second Life account, hope to see you there, at:

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Virtually%20Speaking/167/100/25

If you can’t be in world, you can listen on Blog Talk Radio at http://virtuallyspeaking.ning.com/
And if you miss it, it will be archived at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/virtuallyspeaking

Before us, at 7:30 PM EST there will be music.  Duo Appassionato – Violinists Izabela Spiewak (Izabela Jaworower) and Xi Yang (Young Zeid) play Vivaldi’s *complete* Four Seasons.

Where the Economy Stands and Where It’s Going

Much as I like Elizabeth Warren, I’m not going along with this:

“Even so,” the panel concluded, “there is broad consensus that the TARP was an important part of a broader government strategy that stabilized the U.S. financial system by renewing the flow of credit and averting a more acute crisis.”

It added, “Although the government’s response to the crisis was at first haphazard and uncertain, it eventually proved decisive enough to stop the panic and restore market confidence.”

Why?  Well, because…

The panel’s 134-page report noted that after 14 months of the program, problems remain. Banks resist making loans, toxic mortgage-related assets still clog big banks’ balance sheets and smaller banks are vulnerable to troubles in the commercial real estate sector.

Here’s what happened, not just with TARP but with the overall bailout, of which TARP was only one part.

Because banks were not forced to recognize bad loans and assets, but have been allowed to keep them on the books it did not restart lending.  Instead the money given, loaned and guaranteed has been used to allow banks to not take their losses, and they have used that money in addition to increase leveraged financial plays and for buyouts of other financial firms which are even more distressed.

We’re going to hear a lot of triumphalism over the next year, because the economy is probably going to “recover” more strongly than many expect, not primarily because of the stimulus, but because of increased military spending.  Military Keynesianism is the only type of Keynesianism both parties agree with, and it should be no surprise that Obama escalating in Afghanistan, because that’s spending he can get through Congress and it directly creates jobs.  It’s not the best possible stimulus, not even close, but it’s far better than tax cuts, or tax cuts in drag, which is what much of the stimulus spending actually was, since it allowed States to avoid raising taxes on the rich.  (And yes, Virginia, I’m here to tell you that right now raising taxes on the rich and spending it to create broad based demand and jobs would be very stimulative.)

Japanification has occurred.  To be specific, Japanification is when a society’s banks are unable to lend adequately because they have huge numbers of bad loans on the books which have not been recognized, and which they have to pay down over many years.  The IMF forecast last year, which did not include a stimulus bill, assumed that the economy would have about the level of unemployment it has now.  The IMF is one of the few organizations which saw the crisis coming and which was screaming warnings from the rooftop, so they are not Pollyanas.

The US economy has shifted down a step.  The new “normal” is going to be higher unemployment and lower relative wages than was considered acceptable even under Bush, let alone under Clinton.

Meanwhile, the “decoupling” fools were talking about happening last year, is happening this year.  Most Asian economies are recovering much much more strongly than Europe and the US.  Why?  Because they are creditor nations with surpluses.  Their businesses and consumers can get credit, and their governments can run stimuluses much more effectively than the US can.  They are also production societies which actually still concentrate on making real things, not on leveraged financial plays and suburban expansion of worthless communities without a real economic base to support them.

Meanwhile the US is trying to get the financial economy and the housing bubble going again.  As long as the US is willing to keep shipping real productive capacity and the remaining few areas where the US has a technological advantage to Asia, and particularly to China, those nations will let the US try its financialization game again, but don’t expect them to be enthusiastic about it.

And once they’ve got what they need, it’ll be time to cut the US off.  When the US makes nothing anyone else wants, why should the rest of the world play?

Can you say dollar/Yuan parity?  Sure you can.  Within 20 years.

Enjoy the next year, it’s going to be better than you expect, though unemployment will not recover all that much.  But don’t expect the OK times to last, because they won’t.  Nations which make less and less  the rest of the world wants, don’t do well in the long run.  The game of liquidating America’s advantages has been going on for over 30 years now, and the long run is now the medium run.

Soon it will be the short run.

When even the smart, competent people aren’t willing to face the reality of what’s happening in their own country, that country has nowhere to go but down.  This will be a one step forward, to steps back decline, and triumphalists will scream about how wonderful each step forward is, but the trend is clear and there is no reason to expect it to change anytime in the next 10 to 15 years.

Page 4 of 5

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén